lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Oct]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH][RFC] trace: profile likely and unlikely annotations

On Tue, 28 Oct 2008, Arjan van de Ven wrote:

> On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 10:37:20 -0400
> Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 12:12:48AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > >
> > > Andrew Morton recently suggested having an in-kernel way to profile
> > > likely and unlikely macros. This patch achieves that goal.
> >
> > Maybe I'm confused, but when I read through the patch, it looks like
> > that 'hit' is incremented whenever the condition is true, and 'missed'
> > is incremented whenever the condition is false, correct?
> >
> > Is that what you intended? So for profile_unlikely, "missed" is good,
> > and "hit" is bad, and for profile_likely, "hit" is good, and "missed"
> > is bad. That seems horribly confusing.
> >
> > If that wasn't what you intended, the meaning of "hit" and "missed"
> > seems to be highly confusing, either way. Can we perhaps use some
> > other terminology? Simply using "True" and "False" would be better,
> > since there's no possible confusion what the labels mean.
>
> or "correct" and "incorrect"

This means that the code will need to be different for both. Or at least a
way to differentiate between the two. Not that hard, but I wanted to make
the code as trivial as possible.

-- Steve



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-10-28 20:25    [W:0.053 / U:4.012 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site